Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

A transformation of secondary school teaching in the north of England is needed to reduce the widening north-south divide among Oxbridge students, leading education officials have said.

Schemes to attract the best and brightest teachers and head teachers to the north should emulate the success story in London schools, the children’s commissioner for England told The Times. Anne Longfield called for the change after figures were released showing that half the offers from Cambridge and Oxford went to applicants from London and the southeast.

Statistics for applicants between 2010 and 2015 show that the west London borough of Richmond sent eight times as many students to Oxford (333) as Salford, Middlesbrough, Stoke, Hartlepool and Blackpool combined.

Ms Longfield, who lives in Leeds and has a son, said that many bright pupils were being failed by secondary school teaching in the north. Research by the children’s commissioner found that a young person leaving school or college in London was 57 per cent more likely to go to a top university than a school leaver in the north. However, at primary school, children in the north have been shown to do as well as in the south. Ms Longfield said: “There has been a huge economic boost in the southeast and that comes at the same time as schools in the past five years have improved beyond recognition. This means kids growing up in the south are in a very different environment. The speed London turned around its schools leads me to believe that it is perfectly possible in all areas.”

Nationally about 31 per cent of people are in the top two social income groups, which include doctors, lawyers and senior managers. However, the data reveals children from these background had their share of Oxbridge offers increase from 79 per cent to 81 per cent between 2010 and 2015. This was despite both universities spending £5m each a year on efforts to cast the net wider for students, according to official figures. David Lammy MP, who obtained the Oxbridge application data, said: “We have gone backwards on social class, we have made no progress at all on the north-south divide and we have made very little progress on race.” The data also shows that only one in four Cambridge colleges made offers to black British students in every year between 2010 and 2015. And each year over that period, a quarter of colleges failed to make any offers at all to black British applicants. During this period, an average of 378 black students per year got AAA grades or better at A-levels.

Sir Anthony Seldon, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, said that without the outreach work Oxford and Cambridge do in disadvantaged areas the picture would be even worse. He told The Times that there was “not a critical mass of great teachers” in the north and students’ talents were “not being as well cultivated away from the southeast”.

I’m not putting the blame solely on Oxbridge and never said it was entirely their fault. But I do think they could do a lot better. They are part of the problem though and I truly believe their efforts so far are more for PR reasons rather than truly believing in improving the diversity of their students. For such fantastic institutions, they are shockingly behind the times compared to other highly rated universities. Considering their resources, they could do a lot more.

It’s naive to think that they only care about academic standards. They don’t - like any large international business they have to think about many different factors. And protecting that business goes beyond being concerned about the standard of their academics.

Please substantiate the “they do more than other universities” though.

Yes - I’ve worked closely with both Oxford and Cambridge for over 10 years. Over 18 months alone, I visited Cambridge over 60 times alone.

They do a lot, but whether that is “more” is not evidenced by what you or others are saying. Just because they do more apparent schemes to you, does not mean they “do more”. As a proportion of their revenue, their access initiatives will not be “more” than many universities of various levels of prestige.

There’s no misjudgement just a view that is different to yours. Maybe you need to consider your own bias as skewing your own view.

You were in a geographical area or target school for Oxford’s outreach. Bristol and UCL will have different targets. Just because they didn’t visit you, didn’t mean they didn’t visit your counterpart in a different region.

Yes - you have a personal bias given your connection to the universities. It doesn’t mean you don’t have insight, but it does mean you are a little over protective given the nature of your posts.

See my edit in the post.

We are not talking about PG admissions here. That’s a whole different process. At UG they would have some of that information, and rightfully so to be able to contextualise admissions criteria.

The finances go well beyond their real estate or their museums. They are the mega wealthy when it comes to their revenue, and other universities, even the biggest and more reputable, only have a fraction of what Oxbridge has. We are talking billions vs hundreds of millions.

It is great to have that belief and passion, but it doesn’t mean some of the things you have said are true or even near reflective. That is what I am trying to get across to you.

I am not having a go at either university as I have huge amounts of respect for them. But like you, I strongly believe something. And that belief is that there are certain factors that as a business they need to consider, and that hinders diversity on some level - probably where they are factors designed/constructed/funded by rich white men. For every academic who doesn’t give two hoots about a student’s background (and I hope they wouldn’t), there are people running the business side of things who are more concerned about the numbers than the diversity.

I understand all of that. I still don’t think it proportionate or enough - but that’s just my opinion. I wouldn’t count the admissions process though.

Ultimately they have more finances to do more, no matter how much more expensive their tuition system or their admissions processes. And the effort they do put is not working on certain levels. Maybe they just need to rethink their strategy and approach.

The finances go well beyond their real estate or their museums. They are the mega wealthy when it comes to their revenue, and other universities, even the biggest and more reputable, only have a fraction of what Oxbridge has. We are talking billions vs hundreds of millions.

It is great to have that belief and passion, but it doesn’t mean some of the things you have said are true or even near reflective. That is what I am trying to get across to you.

I am not having a go at either university as I have huge amounts of respect for them. But like you, I strongly believe something. And that belief is that there are certain factors that as a business they need to consider, and that hinders diversity on some level - probably where they are factors designed/constructed/funded by rich white men. For every academic who doesn’t give two hoots about a student’s background (and I hope they wouldn’t), there are people running the business side of things who are more concerned about the numbers than the diversity.

What's wrong with having elite universities take the highest-achieving students? Personally, I couldn't care less whether Oxbridge was made up completely of miners' children from Newcastle, refugees, asylum seekers or doctors' children from Chelsea, if they're the highest performing of all applicants. Everyone is able to apply to Oxbridge - work hard, apply yourself in school, have some ambition and you'll stand a chance.

FWIW I didn't get in to Cambridge.

because many talented students miss out, who for whatever dont have the required extra curricular activities(because the school didnt offer them) or come from families that cant afford private tutors

It really doesn’t work like that. Large donors are not usually parents.

because many talented students miss out, who for whatever dont have the required extra curricular activities(because the school didnt offer them) or come from families that cant afford private tutors

But other factors from a financial perspective do, and indirectly they can work against those trying to make a change.

Although getting access to a library isn’t always as straight forward. People really don’t understand that deprivation filters down to the basics like public services and access to them.

There’s plenty of school without libraries. And those that do have them don’t always have the type of books you are suggesting.

Getting online again isn’t always as easy as you are suggesting. Many in the lowest social economic groups will not have free and easy access to any of the things you have suggested so far, especially when you are talking about high end products like Apple.

Anything related to brand, reputation and prestige usually. Having seen how six figure sponsorship deals are formulated with Oxbridge, I’ve seen how unimportant diversity is then despite the sponsor’s interests in it and on how the money is invested.

No, I’m saying that there are institutionalised issues that work against diversity. It isn’t unique to Oxford though.

Then you were fortunate, not everyone will have had the same opportunities as you.

Most schools have a library....

There's also plenty of stuff available online for free via things like Project Gutenberg and iTunes U which people can access using their school's computers.